Jharkhand High Court
Hari Shankar Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 18 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1045 of 2014
With
Cr. Revision No. 1052 of 2014
Hari Shankar Prasad.......... Petitioner (In Cr. Rev. 1045/2014)
Ramesh Khirwal @ Ramesh Khirwar....Petitioner (In Cr. Rev. 1045/2014)
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ......Opp. Party (In both cases)
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Through:-Video Conferencing
......
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the ACB : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl.P.P.
......
10/18.02.2022 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding,
which has been held through video conferencing today at 2.15 P.M. They
have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the A.C.B.
Both these applications are directed against the order dated
14.08.2014, passed in Special Case No. 28(A) of 2004, corresponding to
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24 of 2004, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 409, 120B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby the discharge petition filed
by the petitioners has been rejected.
To cut short the matter, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that in respect of another case being Special Case No.
27(A) of 2004, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2004, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the petitioner Hari Shankar
Prasad of Cr. Revision No. 1045 of 2016 and in the case of one Naresh
Kumar Rastogi has quashed the entire criminal proceedings. He submits
that the facts of the case and the law points involved in those two cases,
i.e. Cr. Revision Nos. 921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016, are exactly similar to
these two criminal revision applications. He lastly submits that since the
matter is absolutely identical, he relies upon the aforesaid judgment and
prays to allow these two application by passing similar judgment.
Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing for A.C.B. was
granted time on the earlier occasion to verify as to whether the case of
these two petitioners are similar to those petitioners of Cr. Revision Nos.
921 of 2016 and 216 of 2016 or not. Mr. Verma, after going through the
records, admits that the case of these petitioners is exactly similar to those
petitioners, whose case was dealt with by this Court in Cr. Revision Nos.
921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016.
After going through the records, I find that an inquiry was made
by the office of the Superintendent. MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur
regarding irregularities in purchase of materials and medicines. It was
detected that the medicines and other materials were purchased at a
higher rate in violation of the direction of the State Government. On the
aforesaid allegation, the instant case, i.e. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24 of
2004 (Special Case No. 28(A)/2004) was instituted under Section 409,
120B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act. Exactly similar was the allegation in Cr. Revision Nos.
921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016.
Be it noted that petitioner namely Hari Shankar Prasad of Cr.
Revision No. 1045 of 2016, was also the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 921
of 2016. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of
Corruption Act, in both the cases are same. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Cr. Revision Nos. 921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016, relying upon the
judgment passed in Cr.M.P. No. 896 of 2012, has held as follows:-
"Taking a leaf out of the order referred to above, it is absolutely clear that
the vigilance has failed to bring any material on record that on account of
the deliberate act of the petitioners a loss was cause. Both the petitioners
are the stockist of their respective Companies of which there is no
dispute. The authorization was also given by the Companies to the
petitioners pursuant to a purchase order placed before them by the
Superintendent, M.G.M. College & Hospital, Jamshedpur. The policy of
the State Government had given the authorization to the Hospital
Authority to directly order from the Company. Even if it is assumed that
the supply of medicines is at a higher rate than the rate fixed by the
Purchase Committee the same cannot invite criminal prosecution of the
petitioners as it was done under the policy of the State Government."
From the impugned order of this case, I find that what has been
alleged in the FIR, has been incorporated in the impugned order. What are
the materials against the petitioners has also not been mentioned.
After going through the impugned order and the judgment passed
in Cr. Revision Nos. 921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016, I find that the case of
these two petitioners stand on exactly similar footings. In Cr. Revision Nos.
921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016, the respective petitioners were the stockist
and in these cases also the petitioners are the stockist of a Government
Pharmaceutical Company.
Since, the facts, law and materials in these cases are same to that
of Cr. Revision Nos. 921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016, applying the judgment
passed in Cr. Revision Nos. 921 of 2016 & 216 of 2016, both these revision
applications are allowed. The entire criminal proceedings and the
impugned order dated 14.08.2014, passed in Special Case No. 28(A) of
2004, corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24 of 2004, are hereby
quashed.
Both these applications stand allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp.3
